Recommendations for Promotion to Full Professor

Provisions and criteria for the granting of promotion to Full Professor are set out in the Collective Agreement, Section III.8. The following guidelines have been approved by COAP. They are designed to assist chairs and colleagues in the preparation of a recommendation for promotion to Full Professor.

Tenured Associate Professors may be considered for promotion to Full Professor in the

year in which they are at C8 on the salary grid, unless they formally request not to be

considered (see III.8.1.2);

Tenured Associate Professors who are not promoted in the year in which they are at C8

on the salary grid will be considered for promotion in any subsequent year in which they

make a written request to the personnel committee (see III.8.1.3);

Except in exceptional circumstances, recommendations for promotion to Full Professor

are to be based on the candidate’s research1 and teaching since the candidate’s receipt of

tenure;

See Chairs’ calendar ( for annual deadline for submission of recommendations for promotion;

Before October 15 of each year, candidates eligible for promotion to Full Professor

should be notified and given the opportunity to request or defer consideration (see

III.8.3.1.i));

Candidates must indicate at least by the time they submit their materials to the personnel committee for consideration whether they wish to be considered by the criteria of (i) being very highly regarded in research and entirely satisfactory in teaching, or (ii) being very highly regarded in teaching and entirely satisfactory in research (see III.8.2.2);

Where departments2 have formally adopted specific criteria for promotion to Full

Professor, these standards will be binding on the personnel committee concerned,

provided they have first been approved by COAP and Faculty Board and made available

for information and discussed at Joint Committee (see III.8.2.2);

The Chair of the department serves as the Chair of the personnel committee. The

personnel committee is advisory to the Chair. The Chair does not vote (see III.8.3.2);

1 In some cases creative professional work may be considered as part of the candidate’s research output. In such cases, the candidate and the Chair should demonstrate the calibre of the creative work (for example, by citing its juried and/or professionally curated status and/or by providing reviews) and its relation to the candidate’s academic appointment.

2 All references to “department” are intended to cover both undergraduate departments and undergraduate programs.

Faculty who hold cross-appointments in more than one department will be considered for promotion to Full Professor by the personnel committee of their home unit (see III.14.4). The personnel committee must seek input on the candidate’s teaching and research from the non-home unit (see III.14.4). If the candidate requests it, a representative from the non-home unit will be included on the personnel committee, with full voting rights (see III.14.4). This representative from the non-home unit will be in addition to the regularly constituted personnel committee, and will be chosen by the Dean in consultation with the Chairs of the two departments and the candidate;

The personnel committee shall follow a fair and reasonable plan to secure the views of

faculty and students, and the Chair shall include a report on this plan with the

recommendation to COAP and the Dean (see III.8.3.1 iv));

The Chair should alert the candidate that his/her promotion hearing has commenced, and the candidate should be given at least four weeks to prepare a dossier for submission to the personnel committee (see III.8.3.1 iii)). The dossier should include supporting

documentation that addresses the candidate’s contributions to teaching and research

normally since receipt of tenure. The dossier should include a current CV; representative

samples of copies of publications; manuscripts under consideration and evidence of their

status, including referees’ reports where appropriate; evidence of recent grant

applications; representative samples of course syllabi; complete sets of teaching

evaluations for two or more courses over several years; lab manuals and/or course packs,

as appropriate; evidence of reading course, honours, and/or graduate supervision, as

appropriate; evidence of curricular or pedagogical development; evidence of nominations

for teaching awards, etc., and other documentation as relevant. In addition, the candidate

should include a covering letter which serves as a guide to the candidate’s dossier and

which maps out the candidate’s contributions to teaching and research and their

significance;

In the case where the candidate wishes to be considered for promotion to Full Professor

according to the criteria of “being very highly regarded in research and entirely

satisfactory in teaching,” the Chair of the personnel committee should contact between

forty and sixty students (including graduate students, as appropriate) whom the candidate

has taught while at Trent, requesting comments on the candidate’s teaching.

Approximately half of the students should be named by the candidate, and approximately

half by the personnel committee. The students should not be registered in any course

taught by the candidate during the current academic year. Students should be asked to

comment on some or all of the following: the course organization and the instructor’s

presentation of the materials; the intellectual stimulation provided by the course and/or

the instructor; the availability and helpfulness of the instructor, including the adequacy of

feedback; the overall quality of the course; the quality of reading course, honours thesis,

and/or graduate supervision, as appropriate. Students should be told that it is university

practice to ensure that their letters are treated in confidence by the relevant committees

(personnel committee and COAP), unless as a result of an appeal process legal and/or

contractual proceedings require otherwise;

In the case where the candidate wishes to be considered for promotion to Full Professor

according to the criteria of “being very highly regarded in teaching and entirely

satisfactory in research,” the Chair of the personnel committee should contact at least

eighty students (including graduate students, as appropriate) whom the candidate has

taught while at Trent, requesting comments on the candidate’s teaching. Approximately

half of the students should be named by the candidate, and approximately half by the

personnel committee. The students should not be registered in any course taught by the

candidate during the current academic year. Students should be asked to comment on

some or all of the following: the course organization and the instructor’s presentation of

the materials; the intellectual stimulation provided by the course and/or the instructor; the

availability and helpfulness of the instructor, including the adequacy of feedback; the

overall quality of the course; the quality of reading course, honours thesis, and/or

graduate supervision, as appropriate. Students should be told that it is university practice

to ensure that their letters are treated in confidence by the relevant committees (personnel

committee and COAP), unless as a result of an appeal process legal and/or contractual

proceedings require otherwise;

See note below for guidelines governing what additional materials ought to be included in a candidate’s dossier if he/she has elected to be considered under these criteria;

In all cases, the views of two external assessors are to be sought. The candidate should

name one external assessor and the tenure committee should name the other (see III.8.3.1

vi))3. The external assessors are to comment on the candidate’s research in the context of

the relevant criteria. Prior to settling on its choice of external assessor, the personnel

committee should, through its Chair, give the candidate the opportunity to indicate, in

confidence to the Chair, up to one person whom he/she wishes to be excluded from the

personnel committee’s list of potential external assessors. The external assessors should

be respected scholars in their fields (normally Full Professors or equivalent), should have

academic backgrounds that make them well-placed to comment on the candidate’s

research, and must be at arm’s length from the candidate (i.e., not a supervisor,

collaborator, student, family member, or friend of the candidate, or of an immediate

family member of the candidate). The personnel committee, through its Chair, is

responsible for ensuring that the external assessors are at arm’s length. This should be

confirmed in the Chair’s letter to COAP documenting procedure if it is not addressed in

the assessor’s letter;

The Chair should forward the names of the proposed external assessors to the Dean,

including a copy of their CVs and/or brief career resumés, a brief statement outlining their suitability to comment on the candidate's research, and current contact information. The Dean will contact the external assessors to ascertain whether they are willing to serve as referees of the candidate’s research in light of the criteria chosen by the candidate. The

Chair should provide the Dean’s Office with two copies of the research dossier which the

Dean’s Office will then send to the external assessors;

3 In the case of procedures governing the soliciting of views of external assessors for “traditional Aboriginal

knowledge scholars” and “dual tradition scholars” in Indigenous Studies, please see the Indigenous Studies

promotion criteria.

Upon receipt of the external assessors’ letters, the Dean will make copies of these letters available to the personnel committee (see III.8.3.1.vi));

Members of the candidate’s department should be provided with the opportunity to

comment on the candidate’s teaching and/or research. In order that their judgments be

well-founded, they should be provided with access to the non-confidential parts of the

candidate’s promotion file. Confidential materials include teaching evaluations and any

letters by students, faculty, or externals written with the expectation of confidentiality.

Candidates may, if they so choose, give express written consent to have their teaching

evaluations made available to members of their department not on the personnel

committee;

The Chair may contact members of the university outside the candidate’s home

department to comment on the candidate’s teaching and/or research. The candidate should be provided with the opportunity to suggest names of colleagues to the Chair and/or to approve the list proposed by the personnel committee. If members are asked to comment on a candidate’s research, they should be provided with access to the candidate’s research dossier. If members are asked to comment on a candidate’s teaching, they should make explicit in their letter in what capacity they are familiar with the candidate’s teaching;

COAP values letters from departmental and university colleagues. Colleagues should be encouraged to submit letters to the personnel committee commenting on the candidate’s teaching materials (syllabi, assignments, exams, and other materials as relevant), on their experience of the candidate in the classroom, as relevant, on the candidate’s contributions to curricular discussions, and on the quality and importance of the candidate’s research output and its contribution to the discipline;

See III.8.3.1.vii)-ix) for conditions under which the Dean might request the views of up to two additional external referees and the procedures governing such requests;

The personnel committee will consider all the submissions and review the case. By formal vote the committee will make its recommendation to the Chair based on the criteria elected by the candidate (III.8.3.2);

The Chair will inform the personnel committee of the recommendation he/she intends to forward to COAP and the Dean (III.8.3.3);

In the case of a positive recommendation, the Chair is to forward the recommendation of the personnel committee along with his/her recommendation to the Dean by the date

indicated in the chairs’ calendar. The Chair’s recommendation to COAP and the Dean

should include all documentation and correspondence considered by the personnel

committee (see III.8.3.5). The Chair’s letter must provide a detailed presentation of the

case for a positive recommendation for promotion to Full Professor, and it should spell

out the grounds on which the assessment that the candidate meets the relevant criteria was made. For example, an assessment that the candidate is very highly regarded in research and entirely satisfactory in teaching should include an evaluation of the calibre of the journals, conferences, or publishers which support the candidate’s research and an

appraisal of the significance of the research, and an assessment that the candidate is very

highly regarded in teaching and entirely satisfactory in research should include a

summary evaluation of material submitted documenting the candidate’s teaching (see

notes below). In both cases, the evaluation that the candidate is “entirely satisfactory”

should also be substantiated. The Chair’s submission must additionally include a report

on the procedures followed by the personnel committee (see III.8.3.1 iv));

Before a Chair forwards a recommendation against promotion to Full Professor to COAP and the Dean, the Chair must inform the candidate in writing of the reasons for the

negative recommendation and make available to the candidate all the material tabled in

the personnel committee. The candidate may submit a written rebuttal to the Dean, with a

copy to the Chair of the personnel committee (see III.8.3.4.1). See III.8.3.4.3 for

procedures governing the soliciting of further assessments;

Members of COAP will review the candidate’s teaching materials, research materials, all other supporting materials considered by the personnel committee, and the Chair’s

recommendation to the Dean (see III.8.3.5);

Members of COAP will, by formal vote, make a recommendation to the Dean. The Dean shall not vote (see III.8.3.5). If the Dean intends to make a positive recommendation for promotion, the Dean shall make his/her recommendation to the President (see III.8.3.6);

Promotion decisions are made by the Board, following a recommendation from the

President, following a recommendation from the Dean, following a recommendation from COAP, following a recommendation from the Chair of the personnel committee,

following a recommendation from the personnel committee;

Promotion decisions take effect on the July 1 following the decision;

Promotions do not result in salary increases;

With the exception of teaching evaluations, all confidential materials returned to the

department from the Dean’s Office should be kept for one year and then shredded. The

dossier prepared by the candidate, including the teaching evaluations, should be returned

to the candidate.

Note, those faculty who wish to be considered for promotion to Full Professor based on the criteria of being very highly regarded in teaching and entirely satisfactory in research should ensure that, in addition to the materials mentioned above, their files should include:

extensive and detailed reflections on teaching by the candidate, referring to practice

normally since the time of receipt of tenure

a summary of teaching activity normally since the time of receipt of tenure;

summaries of course evaluations for all courses, and complete sets for selected recent

courses;

letters from colleagues familiar with the candidate’s teaching;

evidence of active involvement in curriculum development.

An application would be strengthened by any of the following materials:

a record of one or more Merit Awards based on exceptional performance in teaching;

experience in mentoring departmental and/or other colleagues on matters related to

teaching;

involvement in teaching initiatives and/or workshops involving colleagues and students

outside the department and/or the University;

writing and research concerning teaching;

writing used by others in teaching (e.g. textbooks);

external recognition of teaching (e.g. teaching awards);

evidence of exceptional innovation in teaching and/or evidence of outstanding effort in

maintaining pedagogical traditions as appropriate to one’s discipline.

Discussed at Faculty Board January 2008

Approved by COAP February 2008